Technology Assessment for Radiologists

Radiology

Volumn 230, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 309-314

  Sunshine, Jonathan H ^a,c   Applegate, Kimberly E ^b  

^a AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer screening; Efficacy study; Radiology and radiologists, outcomes studies; Technology assessment

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE COST; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIODIAGNOSIS; RADIOLOGIST; REVIEW; SAFETY; SCREENING;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION TREES; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; TECHNOLOGY, RADIOLOGIC; UNITED STATES; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURES;

EID: 1642580608     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2302031277     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Perry S, Thamer M. Medical innovation and the critical role of health technology assessment. JAMA 1999; 282:1869-1872.
2. Eisenberg J. Ten lessons for evidence-based technology assessment. JAMA 1999; 282:1865-1869.
3. Clancy CM, Eisenberg JM. Outcomes research: measuring the end results of health care. Science 1998; 282:245-246.
4. Hillman BJ. Outcomes research and cost-effectiveness analysis for diagnostic imaging. Radiology 1994; 193:307-310.
5. Fryback DG, Thombury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 1991; 11:88-94.
6. Thornbury JR. Clinical efficacy of diagnostic imaging: love it or leave it. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 162:1-8.
7. American College of Radiology Imaging Network. Contemporary screening for the detection of lung cancer. Available at: www.acrin-nlst.org/6654factsheet.htm. Accessed August 20, 2003.
8. Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV. Clinical decision analysis. Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders, 1980.
9. Hunink MG, Glasziou PP, Siegel J, et al. Decision making in health and medicine: integrating evidence and values. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
10. Chapman GB, Sonnenberg FA. Decision making in health care: theory, psychology, and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
11. Janne D'Othee B, Black WC, Pirard S, Zhuang Z, Bettman MA. Decision analysis in radiology. J Radiol 2001; 82:1693-1698.
12. Singer ME, Applegate KE. Cost-effectiveness analysis in radiology. Radiology 2001; 219:611-620.
13. Soto J. Health economic evaluations using decision analytic modeling: principles and practices-utilization of a checklist to their development and appraisal. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18:94-111.
14. Kleinmuntz B. Clinical and actuarial judgment. Science 1990; 247:146-147.
15. Tsevat J. SMDM presidential address: hearsay or heresy-are health decision scientists too left-brained? Med Decis Making 2003; 23:83-87.
16. Sunshine JH, McNeil BJ. Rapid method for rigorous assessment of radiologic imaging technologies. Radiology 1997; 202:549-557.
17. Baum RA, Rutter CM, Sunshine JH, et al. Multicenter trial to evaluate vascular magnetic resonance angiography of the lower extremity. JAMA 1995; 274:875-880.
18. Lilford RJ, Pauker SG, Braunholtz DA, Chard J. Decision analysis and the implementation of research findings. BMJ 1998; 317:405-409.
19. Blackmore CC. The challenge of clinical radiology research. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176:327-331.
20. Kent DL, Haynor DR, Longstreth WT, Larson EB. The clinical efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging in neuroimaging. Ann Intern Med 1994; 120:856-871.
21. Holman BL. The research that radiologists do: perspective based on a survey of the literature. Radiology 1990; 176:329-332.
22. Blackmore CC, Black WC, Jarvik JG, Langlotz CP. A critical synopsis of the diagnostic and screening radiology outcomes literature. Acad Radiol 1999; 6:S8-S18.
23. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD Initiative. Radiology 2003; 226:24-28.
24. Sox H, Stern S, Owens D, Abrams HL. Monograph of the council on health care technology: assessment of diagnostic technology in health care-rationale, methods, problems, and directions. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989.
25. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, Mostafavi AA, Lawrason JN, McCabe CJ. Helical CT combined with contrast material administered only through the colon for imaging of suspected appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 169:1275-1280.
26. Sivit CJ, Siegel MJ, Applegate KE, Newman KD. When appendicitis is suspected in children. RadioGraphics 2001; 21:247-262.
27. Flum DR, Morris A, Koepsell T, Dellinger EP. Has misdiagnosis of appendicitis decreased over time? a population based analysis. JAMA 2001; 286:1748-1753.
28. Herman CR, Gill HK, Eng J, Fajardo LL. Screening for preclinical disease: test and disease characteristics. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:825-831.
29. Black WC, Welch HG. Screening for disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168:3-11.
30. Black WC, Ling A. Is earlier diagnosis really better? the misleading effects of lead time and length biases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990; 155:625-630.
31. Morrison AS. Screening in chronic disease. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1992;125-127.
32. Black WC, Welch HG. Advances in diagnostic imaging and overestimation of disease prevalence and the benefits of therapy. N Engl J Med 1993; 328:1237-1243.
33. Morrison AS. The effects of early treatment, lead time and length bias on the mortality experienced by cases detected by screening. Int J Epidemiol 1982; 11:261-267.
34. Brant WE, Helms CA, eds. Fundamentals of diagnostic radiology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1999; 825.
35. Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med 1988; 318:1728-1733.